Political Pressure May Push FERC, CFTC Closer Together
|
|
- Cathleen Daniels
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY Phone: Fax: Political Pressure May Push FERC, CFTC Closer Together Law360, New York (October 24, 2014, 11:44 AM ET) -- At the outset of 2014, we reported on two memoranda of understanding entered into by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission concerning matters of jurisdiction and information sharing related to the roles of FERC and the CFTC in conducting market surveillance and investigations into potential market manipulation, fraud and abuse.[1] At the time, we questioned the extent of the impact these memoranda would have for ongoing FERC and CFTC investigations involving overlapping jurisdiction and posited that the practical effect might be hard to discern. The outcome of a recent turf battle between the CFTC and FERC ending in the CFTC s settlement of longstanding energy market manipulation allegations against Brian Hunter, a former Amaranth Advisors LLC trader, has put those questions back into the spotlight and suggests further congressional scrutiny of jurisdictional overlap and perceived noncooperation could be in the works. Daniel A. Mullen Senatorial Scrutiny of the Hunter Settlement The stirrings of further congressional inquiry were signaled in a scathing Oct. 8, 2014 letter to CFTC Chairman Timothy Massad by Sens. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Carl Levin, D-Mich.[2] In the letter, the senators expressed their profound[] disappoint[ment] with the CFTC s Sept. 15, 2014 settlement with Hunter who, in 2006, as the former head natural gas trader at the now defunct Amaranth, allegedly sold massive volumes of futures contracts in order to manipulate the price of natural gas and make illicit profits. [3] In so objecting, the senators expressed dissatisfaction not with the CFTC s decision to settle, but with the commission's willingness to settle for a mere $750,000 an amount the senators deemed an embarrassment that subverted congressional intent, undermine[d] the public interest to the detriment of the American people, and raised concerns about whether the CFTC s authority as currently exercised can effectively regulate energy markets and prohibit market manipulation. [4]
2 Background on the Hunter Settlement Understanding the senators objection to the scope of the settlement requires some understanding of the background to the Hunter settlement itself, which effectively ended a seven-year enforcement odyssey that dates back to conduct occurring nearly nine years ago. The conduct at issue was publicly outlined in the CFTC s July 25, 2007, complaint, which alleged that Amaranth and Hunter attempted to manipulate the price of natural gas futures contracts on the New York Mercantile Exchange in an effort to benefit a larger short interest in natural gas swaps positions held on the Intercontinental Exchange.[5] The settlement prices for NYMEX natural gas futures contracts are determined by the volume-weighted-average for trades executed during a half-hour window on the contract expiration date. ICE then separately uses the NYMEX settlement price to calculate its own settlement price for natural gas swaps traded on ICE. The CFTC alleged that Amaranth and Hunter attempted to artificially lower the price of NYMEX natural gas futures contracts through a process known as banging the close, essentially selling natural gas futures contracts on the NYMEX during the half-hour closing window, at a time when Amaranth had no commercial purpose for doing so and with the knowledge that it was not capable of delivering physical natural gas.[6] In focusing its complaint on attempted manipulation, the CFTC was trying to sidestep an historical anti-manipulation rule applicable to conduct that predated the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.[7] Under applicable case law interpreting that rule, demonstrating manipulation required a four-part showing that: (1) the accused had the ability to influence market prices; (2) that the accused specifically intended to create or effect a price or price trend that does not reflect legitimate forces of supply and demand; (3) that artificial prices existed; and (4) that the accused caused the artificial prices. [8] The requirement that the CFTC demonstrate the existence of an artificial price historically presented significant obstacles to the CFTC s enforcement program; allegations of attempted manipulation obviated this challenge. In contrast, when on the very next day FERC filed its own Order to Show Cause and Notice of Proposed Penalties (the Show Cause Order ) against Amaranth, Hunter and Hunter s fellow Amaranth trader, Matthew Donohoe, FERC s preliminary determination was that the respondents had engaged in actual manipulation of the natural gas markets through their NYMEX trading.[9] Although the CFTC beat FERC out of the gate by a day in filing charges against Amaranth and Hunter, the conduct at issue was first identified by staff in FERC s Division of Energy Market Oversight within the commission's Office of Enforcement. FERC thereafter notified the CFTC with a request for data on the NYMEX trading at issue and FERC s Director of Investigations then initiated a nonpublic preliminary investigation. The investigation was acknowledged by FERC to have been heavily coordinated with an investigation opened subsequently by the CFTC, with additional coordination with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, among others.[10] Despite this apparent coordination and attempted cooperation, the overlapping regulatory regimes presented an opportunity for Hunter to engage in a long-term strategy of what amounted to regulatory arbitrage, thereby benefiting from the least punitive of the competing regulations that he was alleged to have violated. Hunter s strategy, which is explained in greater detail below, involved a successful judicial challenge to FERC s assertion of jurisdiction over his trading.
3 As an initial matter, this strategy likely sought to prevent overlapping enforcement efforts, but ultimately had success in exploiting differing penalty provision authority exercised by FERC and the CFTC. As noted in the Show Cause Order, FERC has the authority to impose civil penalties of up to $1 million per violation, per day for any violations of a provision of the [Natural Gas Act] or a commission rule or order implementing one of those provisions that occurred or continued on or after Aug. 8, [11] Because FERC enforcement staff found that Amaranth s violations consisted of the filing of 219 separate, multicontract executions of fill orders to sell futures contracts, and based on factors determined to weigh in favor of a maximum penalty amount, the FERC Show Cause Order found that the maximum available penalty was $219 million, with an appropriate penalty assessment consisting of a $200 million fine against Amaranth, a $30 million fine against Hunter and a $2 million fine against Donohoe.[12] In contrast, the CFTC complaint referenced its ability to seek civil monetary penalties in an amount not to exceed $130,000, or triple the monetary gain to the respondents for each violation of the Commodity Exchange Act.[13] While the CFTC did not ultimately put forth publicly its assessment of the number of violations at issue or what it believed to be the total monetary gain obtained by the respondents, the FERC Show Cause Order provides at least one possible metric for determining pecuniary gain. In that order, FERC staff made a preliminary finding that Amaranth had profited by a total of at least $59 [million] and perhaps as much as $168 [million] as a direct result of the manipulation. [14] It is worth pointing out that the CFTC complaint alleged attempted manipulation only for conduct in connection with trading done by the respondents in February and April 2006 (in connection with March and May futures contracts), whereas the FERC Show Cause Order contained allegations of manipulation in connection with February, March and April trading for March, April and May futures contracts. However, even without comparable allegations in the CFTC complaint pertaining to the March trading, had the CFTC sought a civil monetary penalty based on findings similar to those of the FERC, these penalties likely would have been substantial.[15] After an initial period in which both regulatory actions worked their way through the administrative and litigation process, Amaranth (and, for the FERC Show Cause Order only, Donohoe) agreed in August 2009 to separate settlements with both agencies, agreeing to pay separate civil penalties to both FERC and the CFTC of $7.5 million.[16] Then, on April 21, 2011, approximately one-and-a-half years after the initial Show Cause Order was issued, FERC upheld a Jan. 22, 2010, initial decision against Hunter and ordered Hunter to pay a civil monetary fine of $30 million.[17] With a final agency action in hand, Hunter moved forward with a prior petition to the D.C. Circuit, seeking review of his challenge to the jurisdictional authority of FERC to assess a fine against him.[18] Hunter s principal jurisdictional argument was that the CFTC had exclusive jurisdiction over conduct in the market for natural gas futures contracts. Despite its prior cooperation in the underlying investigation, the CFTC thereafter intervened in the case on behalf of Hunter and to assert its exclusive jurisdiction over the conduct in question.[19] FERC responded by arguing that, under Section 4A of the Natural Gas Act, manipulation in connection with jurisdictional transactions (essentially, any conduct in a nonjurisdictional transaction that has an impact on a jurisdictional one) is sufficient to bring such conduct within FERC s jurisdiction.[20] The D.C. Circuit disagreed, finding on March 15, 2013, that the CFTC has exclusive jurisdiction over natural gas futures contracts under the CEA and, because the NGA did not repeal the CEA, FERC did not have jurisdiction to assess a fine against Hunter.
4 The Hunter Settlement and Congressional Scrutiny With the FERC enforcement action against Hunter effectively over, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York lifted a pre-existing stay on the CFTC action that was put in place after the filing of Hunter s case in the D.C. Circuit. The CFTC and Hunter then entered into negotiations over the CFTC s complaint, reaching a final settlement through the entry of a Sept. 15, 2014 consent order.[21] The consent order required Hunter, who settled on a neither admit nor deny basis, to pay a $750,000 civil monetary penalty, and permanently banned Hunter from trading all CFTC-regulated products during the settlement period for the last day of trading of the expiring contract, product or instrument for the next (prompt) delivery month.[22] Hunter was separately banned by the consent order from trading all CFTC-regulated natural gas products during the daily closing period for trading for such contract, product or instrument.[23] The order separately instituted a permanent prohibition against Hunter from registering with the CFTC or claiming exemption from registration.[24] In objecting to the settlement, Sens. Cantwell, Feinstein and Levin expressed the view that the settlement is in conflict with congressional intent and undermines the public interest. The senators expressed two principal concerns. First, they expressed the viewpoint that, by intervening on behalf of Hunter in his challenge to FERC's exercise of jurisdiction, the CFTC subverted congressional intent to expand FERC s regulatory and enforcement authority. The senators expressed specific distaste for the fact that the CFTC, in their view, undermined the FERC case after jointly investigating Hunter, finding clear evidence of manipulation, and coordinating legal action with FERC. Second, the senators expressed the view that the CFTC had undermined FERC's case knowing that the CFTC's existing statutory authority would result in an enforcement action of significantly less impact than what FERC's authorities would have enabled. The senators found it unacceptable that, after undermining FERC s $30 million fine, the CFTC settled for a $750,000 fine and failed to secure an admission of guilt from Hunter. In expressing dissatisfaction with the CFTC settlement, the senators were echoing prior requests for the CFTC and the FERC to engage in greater cooperation. The entrance by FERC and the CFTC into jurisdictional and cooperation-based MOUs earlier this year had been preceded by similar congressional requests.[25] Conclusion Sens. Cantwell, Levin and Feinstein did more than express their displeasure with the Hunter settlement in their letter, demanding the CFTC provide an explanation for its actions and respond to [the concerns expressed in the letter] no later than Oct. 24, 2014, together with a plan of action outlining in detail how the CFTC plans to work proactively with FERC to carry out meaningful market regulation and enforcement in cases of manipulation going forward. In making this request, the senators left the CFTC with a warning, suggesting that they are intent on remedying the institutional failures that led to this outcome. While Congress has yet to express any outright desire to legislatively address Hunter s successful jurisdictional challenge to FERC s attempted oversight of natural gas futures contracts, recent congressional dissatisfaction could signal a willingness to revisit the issue. At a minimum, the CFTC can be expected to address the questions posed to it by Sens. Cantwell, Feinstein and Levin, which may lead to a more clearly defined roadmap for enforcement actions in which there is arguable jurisdictional overlap between FERC and the CFTC.
5 By Daniel A. Mullen and Nathan M. Erickson, Fried Frank LLP Daniel Mullen is a partner and Nathan Erickson is an associate in Fried Frank's Washington, D.C., office. The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the firm, its clients, or Portfolio Media Inc., or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice. [1] See Fried Frank Client Memorandum, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and Commodity Futures Trading Commission Sign MOUs on Jurisdiction and Information Sharing (Jan. 6, 2014), available at [2] See Oct. 8, 2014 Letter from Sens. Cantwell, Feinstein and Levin to CFTC Chairman Massad, available at While Sens. Feinstein and Cantwell do not currently sit on any common committees, Sens. Levin and Cantwell currently sit on the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, which is chaired by Sens. Cantwell, and Sens. Levin and Feinstein sit together on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, which is chaired by Sen. Feinstein. Sen. Feinstein separately serves on the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, while Sen. Cantwell sits on the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. [3] See id. [4] See id. [5] See Complaint, Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Amaranth Advisors LLC, et al., 07-cv-6682 (S.D.N.Y, July 25, 2007), available at hcomplaint pdf. [6] The CFTC separately alleged that Amaranth and Hunter took steps to cover up its attempted manipulation by making material misrepresentations to NYMEX regarding the manner in which it described its positions and trading strategy. See id. at 80. [7] As a part of its Dodd-Frank rulemaking, the CFTC adopted Rule Rule implemented amended Commodity Exchange Act Section 6(c)(1), which prohibits, among other conduct, any person from intentionally or recklessly using or employing, or attempting to use or employ, any manipulative device, scheme or artifice to defraud in connection with any swap, or contract of sale of any commodity in interstate commerce. [8] See 76 Fed. Reg , (July 14, 2011). [9] See FERC Order to Show Cause and Notice of Proposed Penalties, 120 FERC 61,085, Docket No. IN at 52 56, available at IN pdf. [10] See id. at 55.
6 [11] See id. at 114. [12] See id. at [13] See Complaint, Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Amaranth Advisors LLC, et al., 07-cv (S.D.N.Y, July 25, 2007) at VI, F; 17 C.F.R (indicating that the inflation-adjusted maximum civil monetary penalty for each violation of the Commodity Exchange Act or the rules, regulation or orders promulgated thereunder committed between Oct. 23, 2004, and Oct. 22, 2008, that may be assessed shall be not more than the greater of $130,000 or triple the monetary gain to such person for each such violation). The current inflation-adjusted maximum civil monetary penalties for manipulation or attempted manipulation violations under the Commodity Exchange Act range from $1 million to $1.02 million, or triple the monetary gain to such person for each such violation. See 17 C.F.R (a)(1)(i)(A), 17 C.F.R (a)(3)(i)(B), and 17 C.F.R (a)(4)(i)(B). [14] See FERC Show Cause Order at 139 (emphasis in original). See also id. at 80-81, 88, and [15] The FERC Show Cause Order identifies a lower threshold estimate of pecuniary gain for the February and April trading of $27 million and $20.5 million, respectively, and an upper threshold estimate of $89 million and $37 million, respectively, for the same months. See id. at 80 and 98 and 81 and 102. This puts FERC s estimated pecuniary gain, based on the trading at issue in the CFTC complaint, within the $47.5 million to $126 million range. [16] See CFTC Consent Order of Permanent Injunction, Civil Monetary Penalty and Other Relief as to Defendants Amaranth Advisors LLC and Amaranth Advisors (Calgary) ULC, 07-Civ.6682 (DC), (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 12, 2009); FERC Order Approving Uncontested Settlement, 128 FERC 61,154 (Aug. 12, 2009). The CFTC order provided for a set-off amount of $3.75 million of the $7.5 million fine assessed by FERC. See CFTC Consent Order at 4 ( Payments by the respondents in the FERC [Show Cause Order], other than Brian Hunter, in satisfaction of any civil penalty entered in the FERC [Show Cause Order] shall satisfy the [civil monetary penalty obligation] up to a total of $3.75 million ). [17] See FERC Order Affirming Initial Decision and Ordering Payment of Civil Penalty, Docket No. IN , 135 FERC 61,054 (Apr. 21, 2011). [18] See Brief for Petitioner, Brian Hunter, Petitioner v. FERC, Respondent, 2012 WL (C.A.D.C, April 10, 2012). Hunter also argued that FERC had inappropriately interpreted the Natural Gas Act s anti-manipulation prohibition to apply to individuals. [19] Brief of Intervenor CFTC, Brian Hunter, Petitioner v. FERC, No , (D.C. Cir. July 16, 2010). [20] Brief of Respondent FERC, Brian Hunter, Petitioner v. FERC, No (D.C. Cir. Sept. 16, 2010). [21] See Consent Order for Civil Monetary Penalty and Other Equitable Relief Against Brian Hunter, CFTC v. Brian Hunter, 07-Civ-6682 (RA), (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 15, 2014). [22] See id. at 14. [23] See id. at 15.
7 [24] See id. at 16. [25] See, e.g., April 29, 2013 Letter from Sens. Feinstein, Lisa Murkowski, R-Ala., and Ron Wyden, D-Ore., to CFTC Chairman Gary Gensler and FERC Chairman Wellinghoff, available at f2229b597f54, (calling on FERC and the CFTC to enter into MOUs necessary to ensure that the agencies will work together to pursue manipulation, will share and integrate all data for natural gas and electricity trading, and will cooperate in order to protect American consumers ). All Content , Portfolio Media, Inc.
Recent CFTC Issuances
CFTC Issues Proposed Rules under the Dodd-Frank Act on the Prohibition of Market Manipulation and an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on the Prohibition of Disruptive Trading Practices SUMMARY On
More informationFrom PLI s Online Program Excessive Speculation, Legislation and Litigation Recent Developments in Commodity Futures Regulation #19613
From PLI s Online Program Excessive Speculation, Legislation and Litigation Recent Developments in Commodity Futures Regulation #19613 5 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ASPECTS OF DOING BUSINESS IN CHINA Elizabeth
More informationHigh Court Ruling May Mean More Demand Response Scrutiny
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com High Court Ruling May Mean More Demand Response Scrutiny
More informationA Practical Examination of the Regulatory Oversight of Energy Marketing & Trading Companies in the United States
A Practical Examination of the Regulatory Oversight of Energy Marketing & Trading Companies in the United States I. Introduction Global energy marketing and trading companies are subject to the oversight
More informationU.S. Regulators Continue Scrutiny of Virtual Currencies and ICOs
U.S. Regulators Continue Scrutiny of Virtual Currencies and ICOs March 15, 2018 This past week, we received further evidence that U.S. federal regulators will continue to scrutinize potential compliance
More informationFinancial Reform and the Emissions and REC Markets
2011 Financial Reform and the Emissions and REC Markets EUEC Phoenix Tauna Szymanski January 31, 2011 Overview How will carbon and other environmental markets be affected by financial reform? Congressional
More informationU.S. COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION
U.S. COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION Three Lafayette Centre 1155 21st Street, NW, Washington, DC 20581 Telephone: (202) 418-5000 Facsimile: (202) 418-5521 www.cftc.gov CFTC Letter No. 15-53 No-Action
More informationPotential Regulatory Gaps In Energy Trading
Portfolio Media, Inc. 648 Broadway, Suite 200 New York, NY 10012 www.law360.com Phone: +1 212 537 6331 Fax: +1 212 537 6371 customerservice@portfoliomedia.com Potential Regulatory Gaps In Energy Trading
More informationOn July 21, 2010, President Obama signed into law the Dodd-Frank
S k a d d e n, A r p s, S l a t e, M e a g h e r & F l o m L L P & A f f i l i a t e s If you have any questions regarding the matters discussed in this memorandum, please contact the following attorneys
More informationSecond and Fifth Circuits Split on Who is Entitled to Whistleblower Protection Under Dodd-Frank
H Reprinted with permission from the Employee Relations LAW JOURNAL Vol. 41, No. 4 Spring 2016 SPLIT CIRCUITS Second and Fifth Circuits Split on Who is Entitled to Whistleblower Protection Under Dodd-Frank
More informationCase , Document 87-1, 03/11/2015, , Page1 of 10. (Argued: September 29, 2014 Decided: March 11, 2015)
Case -0, Document -, 0//0, 0, Page of 0-0-ag Stryker v. Securities and Exchange Commission, 0 0 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT August Term, 0 (Argued: September, 0 Decided: March,
More informationCFTC v. Wilson: Court Rules against CFTC in Commodities Manipulation Bench Trial
CFTC v. Wilson: Court Rules against CFTC in Commodities Manipulation Bench Trial Court Holds that Open-Market Bids and Offers Made with an Honest Desire to Trade Cannot Support Liability under the Commodity
More informationthe Trust Indenture Act of 1939 for those security-based swaps that prior to July 16, 2011 were
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 17 CFR PARTS 230, 240 and 260 [Release Nos. 33-9545; 34-71482; 39-2495; File No. S7-26-11] RIN 3235-AL17 EXTENSION OF EXEMPTIONS FOR SECURITY-BASED SWAPS AGENCY: Securities
More informationThe Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act: Standards of Conduct of Brokers, Dealers, and Investment Advisers
The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act: Standards of Conduct of Brokers, Dealers, and Investment Advisers Michael V. Seitzinger Legislative Attorney April 1, 2015 Congressional Research
More informationPeter H. Rodgers Partner Washington, DC. Old Paradigm: To Each Musketeer His Own
Hunting for Energy Market Manipulation Adventures of the Three Musketeers Starring: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission The Commodity Futures Trading Commission and The Federal Trade Commission Peter
More informationEffective Trading Compliance MFA Compliance 2015
MFA Compliance 2015 Brian T. Daly Partner Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP +1 212.756.2758 brian.daly@srz.com May 5, 2015 Disclaimer This information and any presentation accompanying it (the Content ) has been
More informationCFTC Actions The Energy Industry Should Look For In 2015
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com CFTC Actions The Energy Industry Should Look For In
More informationTenth Circuit Affirms Ruling Allowing SEC to Bring Securities Fraud Claims Over Certain Foreign Transactions
Tenth Circuit Affirms Ruling Allowing SEC to Bring Securities Fraud Claims Over Certain Foreign Transactions January 30, 2019 Last week, in SEC v. Scoville, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
More informationFood, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 Removes Enron Loophole and Reforms Electronic Energy Markets
Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 Removes Enron Loophole and Reforms Electronic Energy Markets James Hamilton, J.D., LL.M. CCH Principal Analyst 2 Introduction A measure reauthorizing the CFTC
More informationNotice of Proposed Rulemaking Position Limits for Derivatives (RIN 3038-AD99)
Christopher Kirkpatrick Secretary Commodity Futures Trading Commission 1155 21st Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20581 Re: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Position Limits for Derivatives (RIN 3038-AD99) Ladies
More informationCase 2:17-cv CB Document 28 Filed 02/28/18 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 2:17-cv-01502-CB Document 28 Filed 02/28/18 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION ) BUREAU, ) ) Petitioner, ) Civil
More informationCase 1:17-cv Document 1 Filed 09/21/17 Page 1 of 21. ECF Case I. INTRODUCTION
Case 1:17-cv-07181 Document 1 Filed 09/21/17 Page 1 of 21 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION, v. Plaintiff, GELFMAN BLUEPRINT, INC., and NICHOLAS
More informationAmendments to the Swap Data Access Provisions of Part 49 and Certain Other. SUMMARY: Pursuant to Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and
This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 06/12/2018 and available online at https://federalregister.gov/d/2018-12377, and on FDsys.gov 6351-01-P COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION
More informationCase 1:13-cv AT-KNF Document 137 Filed 07/13/16 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Case 1:13-cv-07884-AT-KNF Document 137 Filed 07/13/16 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK UNITED STATES COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION, Case No. 13-7884 (AT/KF)
More informationA SURVEY OF REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO INVESTMENT ADVISERS
A SURVEY OF REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO INVESTMENT ADVISERS Joshua E. Broaded 1. Introduction... 27 2. A Bit of History... 28 3. The Golden Rule... 28 4. The Advisers Act s Structure... 29 A. Sections and
More informationFEDERAL REPORTER, 3d SERIES
470 705 FEDERAL REPORTER, 3d SERIES HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC. and E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company, Petitioners v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Respondent Arkema Inc., et al., Intervenors. Nos.
More informationCFTC Exemptive Relief Upon Effective Date of Title VII of Dodd-Frank
CFTC Exemptive Relief Upon Effective Date of Title VII of Dodd-Frank CFTC Issues Proposed Order to Provide Relief from Certain Provisions of Title VII That Would Be Effective on July 16, 2011 SUMMARY On
More informationUNITED STATES OF AMERICA Before the COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Before the COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION In the Matter of 1 JOSEPH B. KNAUTH, JR., ) Respondent. 1 1. ^. :!
More informationHigh-Frequency Trading Cases Slow To Take Shape
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com High-Frequency Trading Cases Slow To Take Shape Law360,
More informationSyllabus. Derivatives Market Regulation Under Dodd-Frank Spring 2017 Georgetown University Law Center LAWG LAWJ969-08
Syllabus Derivatives Market Regulation Under Dodd-Frank Spring 2017 Georgetown University Law Center LAWG969-08 LAWJ969-08 Course Description This course is designed as a Derivatives 101 equivalent, providing
More information3 District Court Decisions Highlight Limits To CFPB Claims
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com 3 District Court Decisions Highlight Limits
More informationFutures & Derivatives Law
REPORT Reprinted with permission from Futures and Derivatives Law Report, Volume 36, Issue 7, K2016 Thomson Reuters. Further reproduction without permission of the publisher is prohibited. For additional
More informationUnited States V. Cruz- Tax Preparers Finally Beat IRS Death Penalty Action
University of Miami Law School Institutional Repository University of Miami Law Review 7-11-2011 United States V. Cruz- Tax Preparers Finally Beat IRS Death Penalty Action Alexander Smith Follow this and
More informationSUMMARY: The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (the Commission or the
This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 03/21/2016 and available online at http://federalregister.gov/a/2016-06260, and on FDsys.gov 6351-01-P COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION
More informationAn Overview Of Recent Trends In PCAOB Inspection Reports
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com An Overview Of Recent Trends In PCAOB Inspection Reports
More informationA Little-Known Powerful Tool To Fight Calif. Insurance Fraud
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com A Little-Known Powerful Tool To Fight Calif. Insurance
More informationFinancial Accounting Standards Board to Issue Final Guidance on Variable Interest Entities
Business/Financial News in Brief March 24, 2006 SEC/Corporate Financial Accounting Standards Board to Issue Final Guidance on Variable Interest Entities The Financial Accounting Standards Board plans to
More informationQ UPDATE EXECUTIVE RISK SOLUTIONS CASES OF INTEREST D&O FILINGS, SETTLEMENTS AND OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
EXECUTIVE RISK SOLUTIONS Q1 2018 UPDATE CASES OF INTEREST U.S. SUPREME COURT FINDS STATE COURTS RETAIN JURISDICTION OVER 1933 ACT CLAIMS STATUTORY DAMAGES FOR VIOLATION OF TCPA FOUND TO BE PENALTIES AND
More informationU.S. COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION
U.S. COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION Three Lafayette Centre 1155 21st Street, NW, Washington, DC 20581 Telephone: (202) 418-5000 Facsimile: (202) 418-5521 www.cftc.gov CFTC Letter 17-27 No-Action
More informationDodd Frank Update: Impact on Gas & Power Transactions
The University of Texas School of Law Presented: 10 th Annual Gas & Power Institute September 22-23, 2011 Houston, Texas Dodd Frank Update: Impact on Gas & Power Transactions Craig R. Enochs Kevin M. Page
More informationRegulation of Energy Derivatives
Order Code RS21401 Updated July 7, 2008 Regulation of Energy Derivatives Summary Mark Jickling Specialist in Financial Economics Government and Finance Division After the collapse of Enron Corp. in late
More informationCase 2:17-cv DN Document 2 Filed 05/30/17 Page 1 of 20 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH : : : : : : : : : : : : :
Case 217-cv-00483-DN Document 2 Filed 05/30/17 Page 1 of 20 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION, v. Plaintiff, TALLINEX a/k/a TALLINEX LIMITED
More informationThis Webcast Will Begin Shortly
This Webcast Will Begin Shortly If you have any technical problems with the Webcast or the streaming audio, please contact us via email at: webcast@acc.com Thank You! A Look Back at the Year in CFTC Enforcement
More informationStarting An AIA Post-Grant Proceeding
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Starting An AIA Post-Grant Proceeding Law360, New
More informationDecember 19, Dear Mr. Kirkpatrick:
December 19, 2016 Mr. Christopher Kirkpatrick Secretary of the Commission Commodity Futures Trading Commission Three Lafayette Centre 1155 21 st Street NW Washington, DC 20581 Re: Cross-Border Application
More information**ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR DECEMBER 8, 2017** IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
USCA Case #16-5345 Document #1703161 Filed: 11/06/2017 Page 1 of 10 **ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR DECEMBER 8, 2017** IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT The National
More informationCFTC, SEC Propose to Delay the Applicability of Certain Swap Provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act
June 17, 2011 CFTC, SEC Propose to Delay the Applicability of Certain Swap Provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act The general effective date for most provisions under Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case :-cv-0-cjc-jc Document Filed /0/ Page of Page ID #: 0 KENNETH J. GUIDO, Cal. Bar No. 000 E-mail: guidok@sec.gov Attorney for Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission 0 F Street, N.E. Washington,
More informationProving Trademark Fraud: Intent Is The Question
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Proving Trademark Fraud: Intent Is The Question Law360,
More informationSpring Energy & Commodities Conference
Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP www.cadwalader.com Spring Energy & Commodities Conference April 6, 2016 Panel Three: CFTC and SRO Regulatory and Enforcement Update Panelists Moderator: Anthony Mansfield,
More informationAPPENDIX I PUERTO RICO SALES TAX FINANCING CORPORATION ANNUAL FINANCIAL INFORMATION AND OPERATING DATA REPORT
APPENDIX I PUERTO RICO SALES TAX FINANCING CORPORATION ANNUAL FINANCIAL INFORMATION AND OPERATING DATA REPORT PUERTO RICO SALES TAX FINANCING CORPORATION ANNUAL FINANCIAL INFORMATION AND OPERATING DATA
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA In re UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INCORPORATED PSLRA LITIGATION This Document Relates To: ALL ACTIONS. Civ. No. 0:06-cv-01691-JMR-FLN CLASS ACTION CALIFORNIA PUBLIC
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) Z STREET, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil No. 1:12-cv-401-KBJ ) DAVID KAUTTER, ) IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS ) ACTING COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
More informationU.S. COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION
U.S. COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION Three Lafayette Centre 1155 21st Street, NW, Washington, DC 20581 Telephone: (202) 418-5000 Facsimile: (202) 418-5521 www.cftc.gov CFTC Letter 15-24 No-Action
More informationFive Questions to Ask to Maximize D&O Insurance Coverage of FCPA Claims
Five Questions to Ask to Maximize D&O Insurance Coverage of FCPA Claims By Andrew M. Reidy, Joseph M. Saka and Ario Fazli Lowenstein Sandler Companies spend hundreds of millions of dollars annually to
More informationSwap Clearinghouses and Markets
Capital Markets 1 Swap Clearinghouses and Markets An objective of Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act is to create a structure and incentives to expand preand post-execution transparency for swaps and security-based
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK UNITED STATES COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION, Plaintiff, No.
EXHIBIT 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK UNITED STATES COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. No. 13-7884 (AT/KF) DONALD R. WILSON AND DRW INVESTMENTS,
More informationSEC Antifraud Rule Applicable to Investment Advisers to Pooled Investment Vehicles Becomes Effective
CAHILL GORDON & REINDEL LLP SEPTEMBER 10, 2007 EIGHTY PINE STREET NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10005-1702 TELEPHONE: (212) 701-3000 FACSIMILE: (212) 269-5420 This memorandum is for general information purposes only
More informationCase 4:14-cv JAJ-HCA Document 197 Filed 02/03/16 Page 1 of 6
Case 4:14-cv-00044-JAJ-HCA Document 197 Filed 02/03/16 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA CENTRAL DIVISION AMERICAN CHEMICALS & EQUIPMENT, INC. 401(K) RETIREMENT
More informationNotice of Proposed Rulemaking Position Limits for Derivatives (RIN 3038-AD11)
February 10, 2014 Melissa Jurgens Secretary Commodity Futures Trading Commission Three Lafayette Centre 1155 21 st Street, N.W. Washington DC 20581 Re: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Position Limits for
More informationThe 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act
Energy Risk & Markets Dodd-Frank and Electric Utilities Understanding the new mosaic of commodities trading regulations. BY MATTHEW J. AGEN The 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection
More informationProxy Access Struck Down by Courts. Additional Dodd-Frank Act Compensation and Governance Provisions Delayed
Proxy Access Struck Down by Courts August 4, 2011 Additional Dodd-Frank Act Compensation and Governance Provisions Delayed As we reached the first anniversary of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer
More informationAGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading Commission. SUMMARY: The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (Commission or CFTC) is
This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 03/25/2015 and available online at http://federalregister.gov/a/2015-06687, and on FDsys.gov 6351-01-P COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION
More informationACCEPTANCE AND CONSENT
THE NEW YORK STOCK EXCHANGE LLC LETTER OF ACCEPTANCE, WAIVER AND CONSENT NO. 2012031480718 TO: RE: The New York Stock Exchange LLC do Department of Enforcement Financial Industry Regulatory Authority ("FINRA")
More informationWhen Can LLCs Appoint A Special Litigation Committee?
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com When Can LLCs Appoint A Special Litigation
More informationFraud, Manipulation and Deception: CFTC/SEC Proposed Rules
News Bulletin December 13, 2010 Fraud, Manipulation and Deception: CFTC/SEC Proposed Rules On November 3, 2010, both the Commodity Futures Trading Commission ( CFTC ) and the Securities and Exchange Commission
More informationADVISORY Dodd-Frank Act
ADVISORY Dodd-Frank Act August 5, 2013 CFTC ISSUES FINAL INTERPRETIVE GUIDANCE AND POLICY STATEMENT AND EXEMPTIVE ORDER REGARDING CROSS-BORDER APPLICATION OF DODD-FRANK ACT SWAP PROVISIONS On July 12,
More informationKey Differences Between the CFTC and SEC Final Business Conduct Standards and Related Cross-Border Requirements
SECURITIES May 26, 2016 Dodd-Frank Implementation Update Key Differences Between the CFTC and SEC Final Business Conduct Standards and Related Cross-Border Requirements By Paul M. Architzel, Dan M. Berkovitz,
More informationSUPREME COURT RULES ON REACH OF SECURITIES FRAUD STATUTE AND VIABLITY OF F-CUBED CLASS ACTIONS
SUPREME COURT RULES ON REACH OF SECURITIES FRAUD STATUTE AND VIABLITY OF F-CUBED CLASS ACTIONS By: Bryan Erman 1 The United States Supreme Court recently held, in Morrison v. National Australia Bank, Ltd.
More informationPRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS
PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS OF DERIVATIVES REFORM GORDON F. PEERY and STUART E. FROSS K&L GATES LLP Boston, MA September 21, 2010 1 Agenda Introduction Speakers Late-Breaking Developments: Developments in August
More informationAnother Page In The Issuer-Bondholder Playbook
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Another Page In The Issuer-Bondholder Playbook
More informationREPORTS SECTION U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION (SEC) 2009 & 2010 FINAL RULES 1 AT A GLANCE
REPORTS SECTION U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION (SEC) 2009 & 2010 FINAL RULES 1 AT A GLANCE SEC Final Rule Name SEC Final Rule: Risk Management Controls for Brokers or Dealers with Market Access;
More informationInsurance Tips For 'No Poach' Employment Antitrust Claims
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Insurance Tips For 'No Poach' Employment
More informationTo Our Clients and Friends Memorandum friedfrank.com
To Our Clients and Friends Memorandum friedfrank.com CFTC Update: CFTC Proposes New Position Limits and Aggregation Rules 1 Introduction On November 5, 2013, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (
More informationPLI February 22, 2016 Presentation on Manipulative Spoofing and Layering Trading Activity
PLI February 22, 2016 Presentation on Manipulative Spoofing and Layering Trading Activity 1 Gene G. DeMaio, Esq. John F. Malitzis, Esq. Robert A. Marchman, Esq. FINRA Department of Market Regulation 1
More informationSecurity-Based Swap Execution Facilities
SEC Proposes Rules on Registration of Security-Based Swap Execution Facilities SUMMARY On February 2, 2011, the Securities and Exchange Commission (the SEC ) proposed Regulation SB SEF, 1 which sets forth
More informationRe: RIN 3038 AD18 / Core Principles and Other Requirements for Swap Execution Facilities
March 8, 2011 Mr. David A. Stawick Secretary Commodity Futures Trading Commission Three Lafayette Centre 1155 21st Street, NW Washington, DC 20581 Re: RIN 3038 AD18 / Core Principles and Other Requirements
More informationCase 1:17-cv VSB Document 1 Filed 05/16/17 Page 1 of 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case 1:17-cv-03680-VSB Document 1 Filed 05/16/17 Page 1 of 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. Plaintiff, DICK
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN. v. Case No. 15-CV-837 ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN THOMAS MAVROFF, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 15-CV-837 KOHN LAW FIRM S.C. and DAVID A. AMBROSH, Defendants. ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE
More informationDodd-frank implementation update: key differences between the CFTC and SEC final business conduct standards and related cross-border requirements
Dodd-frank implementation update: key differences between the CFTC and SEC final business conduct standards and related cross-border requirements Paul M. Architzel, Dan M. Berkovitz, Gail Bernstein, Seth
More informationEmerging Disputes Over Risk Sharing Under The ACA
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Emerging Disputes Over Risk Sharing Under
More informationWhat the Supreme Court s Whistleblower Decision Means for Companies
Latham & Watkins White Collar Defense and Investigations, Securities Litigation & Professional Liability, and Supreme Court and Appellate Practices February 28, 2018 Number 2284 What the Supreme Court
More informationAugust 27, Dear Mr. Stawik:
August 27, 2012 David A. Stawick Secretary of the Commission Commodity Futures Trading Commission Three Lafayette Centre 1155 21 st Street N.W. Washington D.C. 20581 Re: Proposed Interpretive Guidance
More informationINVESTMENT MANAGEMENT ALERT
INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT ALERT August 1, 2013 SEC Adopts Final Rules on Amendments to Rule 506 Private Placement Exemption: Impact on Private Funds and Other Issuers Authors: Peter J. Bilfield (203) 324-8151
More informationSecond Circuit Signals That a Bare Violation of a Disclosure Statute Will Not Confer Standing
March 28, 2017 Second Circuit Signals That a Bare Violation of a Disclosure Statute Will Not Confer Standing In a February 23, 2017 summary decision in Ross v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company and
More informationUNITED STATES OF AMERICA Before the COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Before the COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION CFTC Docket No. 15-33 In the Matter of: ORDER INSTITUTING TeraExchange LLC, Respondent. I. PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 6(c
More informationSEC Enforcement in the Energy Industry
SEC Enforcement in the Energy Industry Kit Addleman Steve Corso September 10, 2015 THE SEC S INCREASED SCRUTINY The SEC is increasing scrutiny of the energy industry with an emphasis on: Accurate reserve
More informationRegulation of Energy Derivatives
Order Code RS21401 Updated May 12, 2008 Regulation of Energy Derivatives Summary Mark Jickling Specialist in Financial Economics Government and Finance Division After the collapse of Enron Corp. in late
More informationDirect and Significant Connections: CFTC Provides Guidance on Extraterritoriality
News Bulletin July 2, 2012 Direct and Significant Connections: CFTC Provides Guidance on Extraterritoriality On June 29th, the CFTC published a proposed policy statement and interpretive guidance addressing
More informationRequest for No-Action Relief with Regard to Commodity Exchange Act Sections 4d and 4n and Commission Rule 3.10
CEA 4d, and 4n Commission Rule 3.10 Gary Barnett, Esq. Director Division of Swap Dealer and Intermediary Oversight Commodity Futures Trading Commission Three Lafayette Center 1155 21 st Street, NW Washington,
More informationCategory 1: provisions that require a rulemaking; Category 2: self-effectuating provisions that reference terms that require further definition;
CALM BEFORE THE STORM? CFTC PROPOSES TEMPORARY EXEMPTIVE RELIEF June 17, 2011 To Our Clients Friends: Earlier this week, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (the CFTC ) released a proposed order to
More informationBACKGROUND NASDAQ BX, INC. LETTER OF ACCEPTANCE, WAIVER AND CONSENT NO
NASDAQ BX, INC. LETTER OF ACCEPTANCE, WAIVER AND CONSENT NO. 2012031480719 TO: RE: NASDAQ BX, Inc. do Department of Enforcement Financial Industry Regulatory Authority ("FINRA") Simon Librati, Respondent
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
USCA Case #17-7003 Document #1710165 Filed: 12/22/2017 Page 1 of 11 United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued November 13, 2017 Decided December 22, 2017 No. 17-7003 UNITED
More informationTable of Contents. August 2010 Arnold & Porter LLP
Rulemakings under the Dodd-Frank Act The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Act) requires the federal financial regulators to promulgate more than 180 new rules. The Act also permits
More informationNYSE ARCA, INC. Appearances
NYSE ARCA, INC. NYSE REGULATION, Complainant, v. MAURICE ELYEZER BENSOUSSAN, FINRA Proceeding No. 20120314807-09 August 9, 2018 Respondent. Respondent is liable, pursuant to Section 20(a) of the Securities
More informationDodd Frank Update: Impact on Gas & Power Transactions
The University of Texas School of Law Presented: 10 th Annual Gas & Power Institute September 22-23, 2011 Houston, Texas Dodd Frank Update: Impact on Gas & Power Transactions Craig R. Enochs Kevin M. Page
More informationBank Regulatory Practice
Bank Regulatory Practice SEPTEMBER 2016 Does the Federal Reserve Board have Authority to Set Incentive Compensation? Earlier this year, the Agencies 1 published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (the Proposed
More informationDerivatives Use, Trading & Regulation, Vol. 11 No. 4, 2006, pp Palgrave Macmillan Ltd /06 $30.00
US legal and regulatory developments Validity of Commodity Futures Trading Commission s Policy Statement concerning swap transactions reaffirmed; CFTC Reauthorization Act of 2005 Ian Cuillerier Hunton
More informationCase: 1:18-cv CAB Doc #: 11 Filed: 03/05/19 1 of 7. PageID #: 84 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION
Case: 1:18-cv-01794-CAB Doc #: 11 Filed: 03/05/19 1 of 7. PageID #: 84 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION CAROLYN D. HOLLOWAY, CASE NO.1:18CV1794 Plaintiff, JUDGE CHRISTOPHER
More informationClient Alert. CFTC Issues a Flurry of No-Action Letters and Guidance as New Swap Regulations Become Effective. Swap Entity Definition Guidance
Number 1425 November 6, 2012 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Corporate Department CFTC Issues a Flurry of No-Action Letters and Guidance as New Swap Regulations Become Effective Between October 10 and October
More information